the galah

the government passed legislation that created the legal process for the tab to enter into the agreement with entain. . The nz government never put any money in when the entain deal occured. the nz government provided a support package/bail out for the nz tab/racing industry board around 2020 to the tune of around $70m because the tab had been so poorly run.It was around covid time,but nothing to do with covid.That was a one off to keep the racing industry here afloat. nz government do not fund nz racing anually. never have. once harness have spent their share of the entain money,they have to rely on wagering to cover their stakes. as 've i mentioned previously,fortunately thats not just wagering on nz harness,if it was things would look very dire,but it still appears hrnz are happily spending,without understanding of exactly how much income they will be funded by entain. Entain don't even know,they're also guessing until they have had a year of the geo blocking. as to victoria. victorian harness overspent. So the victorian government came to an agreement where they said,we'll wipe your debt to us,but we're taking your asset worth over 100m, the spare land they around melton. tabcorp has a longer term guaranteed funding agreement with wictorian harness. Nz only has 2 more years guaranteed funding. i've worked for a giovernment department and understand what gamma was saying. They get funded x amount of money each year,then when they get near the end of that finacial year the departments look at what they were allocated and if they haven't spent it all theygo on a bit of a spending spree as that way they can say to the govt,this is waht we spent last year so you need to fund us at least the same this year.Thats totally irrelevant to nz racing as its not governmant funded

of course i'm referring to nz.

maybe this post illustrates why you don't understabnd what we are saying. because what you've just posted has no relevance as far as i understand things,because racing does not get any annual allocation of funds from the governent, that they have to spend within a certain time frame. Never has..

is that graph for all 3 racing codes combined? It would be interesting to see the individual graphs for each code.

if we thought hrnz could afford to sustain the level of stakes funding ,then you would only have discussion about where that funding is best directed. in other words we can debate whether hrnz directing funding to x or y is approprate,but at least its going to people within the industry,either way. however,most don't belive hrnz can sustain the level of stakes and are significantly overspending,therefore that will result in both the x and y sectors of the industry being impacted for the worse. gamma,when you comment on who should get funding,your commenting on the first part and of course that ultimately comes down to opinions and the difference in opinions is fair enough,but you never seem to place much focus on the second part of what 've said. the second part will always be the most significvant for everyone long term. because funding priorities can change if you have the money to fund them,but funding priorities won't exist if the funds are no longer there and things will revert back to bare minimum and survival mode.If that happens then there will be a far greater outcry against everyone involved in thecurrent decision making.

i bag hrnz's current financial management team. i was once in a co-op and it used to be well run.Then people in charge changed,others retired and things started going off the rails.So i spoke up at meetings and pointed out some obvious truths about finacial matters. e.g. i wanted them to put systems in place to ensure every $ was accounted for,in particular around honesty.. management said,what are you on about . I said,why can't you do the maths at meetings . in the end i got tired of it,,so just made sure the office credited my account with every last $ i was due. .Well ,guess what,turned out i was right and the company eventually admitted $100,000 of shareholders money went into the ether.i was the only one not effected .That is differetn to anything hrnz is doing,no dishonesty at hrnz i assume,,but the same in that sometimes things are pretty obvious. But people always choose to see only what benefits themselves short term and ignore the self harm they are doing by refusing to listen to common sense voices. What i learnt was,well all you can do is put your opinion forward ,but it doesn't change that people always prioritise self interest. its just the way the world works. harness racings no different. everyone is just trying to do whats best for themselves. But hrnz leadership should be there to do whats best for everyone,not whats best for their mates and the people or clubs who have the influence.

i don't mind a bit of sarcasm. . only thing is,you have said many times that you belive the first pararaph. you are consistent.Always,focusing on the desparate plight of harness racings rich and famous,worried about where they may get their next meal from if the north island stakes were to be cut, or hrnz was to say,no more 5 horse fields. You've got me feeling sorry for them as well. I will put in a kind word if is see them at the foodbank next week and will drop and email to brad steele and voice my support for more 3 horse fields and 50,000 series,whatever they call them. theres my bit of sarcasm. i'll be honest like you gamma. i don't give a second thought to just how tough it could be for harness racings rich and famous. Why. Because they are rich and famous. i care far more about the battlers and the small timers who have also spent their lifetimes dedicated to the same industry and haven't the wealth or had success to any great level,but kept plugging away because of their love for the sport and the horse. yeah,great stuff ATC. eroding their asset base by half a million a month for the last couple of years is something to really applaud. Well done ATC. Oh and well done cambridge.they know how to dig themselves into a huge financial hole as well. Well done to them. And well done hrnz. You know how to pick the best run clubs to throw the industries financial resources at. Come in atc and cambridge.

yes its alright. Its just not practical to ban betting here on aussie dogs. i wonder,will the nz greyhound trainers still be able to train up their dogs and sell them to australia in the future as potential racers/ i don't know why the states that still have greyhound racing just don't follow the recommendations of the nsw commission that came out last year. its the scale of greyhound racing that is both their strength and their weakness. the solutions didn't seem too hard to implement,its just people liked it the way it is and turn a blind eye to the dark side of the way it is. Then you get commission of inquiries and bans citing all the old issues and for some reason the industry claims to be blindsided. i've always thought thats strange.

when i watched dave fahey interviewed after his last nz cup win,he said it all really would mean nothing as the sport was going to disappear this year. it sort of reminds me how harness breeders have had their broodmare families for years yet no one wants to breed from them anymore due to the declining interest in harness racing.thats also very sad. fahey seemed quite upset,as i think hes entitled to be.I watched that and thought,how did the greyhound people not see it coming and why were they blaming winston peters when it was the greyhound industry which had evolved into something which had a dark side to it. the demise of the industry was always a given. I used to infer that when posting on the greyhound part of this webisite . greyhound racing had evolved to rewarding large scale mass production type farms and there were kennels who simply took advantage of that. The injury thing was significant,but thats not what tipped the industry over.. the signs were there when the cole kennel had their live baiting thing ,where they had so many employees not willing to tell the ruth and they attacked those that did. The mcinerney issues. have you ever read how many really bad incidents involved that kennel on the jca website.. It was all down to the scale of how they operated.how could anyone not see that was what contributed to the industries demise.These were the industries flagbearers,yet they were the industries own worst publicists. have people ever read the anaylisis of data the former nsw chief vet did when investigating injuries. He specifically identified a major spike in injuries when dogs were backed up within 2 or 3 days.. Yet,that had been the practice of the likes of the mcinerny kennel for years. That kennel must have known,but it was all about the money. As i said on the greyhound forum,people should read what that nsw vet said in his submission to the latest nsw commission. The latest nsw commssion findings highlighted many issues the greyhounds had over there and they all still applied to nz. i only have been to the greyhounds once in the last 3 years. I referred to it in a post at the time. Not 1 spectator ,no racebook and only 2 people in the bar under next to the bridcage at addington. 1 of those the photo man who trundled out every race to take a photo.Off in the distance the handlers would come out,then they would race in the distance. that off in the distance,detachment somehow summed up the industry to me at the time. It had no personal connection with anyone except themselves. I remember going to forbury about 10 years ago and going over near where the dogs came onto the track only to be told by a trainer words to the effect,piss off,this is the greyhounds area. I only was going to have a look at them come out onto the track. It struck me,that fella reflected the same type of attitude you would read about in the jca reports when the likes of the schofields or the coles were fueding with people. Or when you read the way they argued with each oither on socail media forums like the other channel.Their was this sense of hostility. it was all such a far cry from all the trips i would make to que2 to watch the dogs. those were the days. also,just last month the nsw government advised wentworth park was not getting their lease renewed and would be demolished and that the government would instead invest 10m supporting racing at their other tracks.they plan to build up to 4800 houses and 20 sports fields on that ground. thats being viewed as a major blow to the industryin nsw,although the current govenment has no plans close the sport down. So greyhound racing seem safe for quite a few years there.

it was a great movie. i see no reason whatsover to think betting on australian greyhound racing will stop here.That makes no financial sense.

it will shrink considerably in the north island. thats due to hrnz ,atc and cambridge not having any forward thinking and everyone up there just putting self interest over the overall industries interest. canterbury and southland are doing the same,just not to the same level. .In other words,let those currently involved who are mostly older, lead out their lives for the next few years confortatbly and give nothing more than lip service when expressing concern about those around in 10-15 years time. hey i get thats just a human thing,but there will come a time when people will look back and say,yeah,we should have done things differently. the industry is shrinking significantly in canterbury and southland. It already has and is continuing to. People just have to open their eyes and its obvious. The rate of its decline is quite amazing when you compare things to what they were,even as little as 20 years ago.

the courage reactor race that you mention wilson house came from the back to win. They only ran their last 400 in 30.1,because the horse in front was driven beyond its abilities so was always going to stop. short distance racing does provide a significant advantage to horses drawn in and who can race on the speed.Moreso than those run over 2400. more punters prefer long distance racing,but as you say,what the ounters want is not the priority.Hrnz have prioritised is getting horses to have more starts so as to keep field sizes up,.but the irony is hrnz is doing that while doing the opposite in the areas i mentioned earlier. at the end of the day,i think while the distance of races is of importance,its just another symptom of a declining industry which has many other issues it is not addressing which will impact it far more.

you can't compare gallops to harness. ask any punter and they will tell you they think the gallopers are always trying and the trots are often just there to follow them around. and everyone knows thats true anyway. Thats the way the harness rating systems work,especially over there.run them down the track with some quiet follow them around runs . Its not like people don't know that. personally i think addington 1980 races should be limited to 10 runners,not 14.

that wanting an optimum field size is just talk. you have to judge them by their actions,not the talk that comes out of hrnz. its very obvious that hrnz have strongly been pushing policies which have directly lead to so many small fileds. The 2 year old racing,the high class racing,the over saturation of racing at cambridge and auckland

then again the opposite also applies. if people say greyhound racing should continue here,then they should also be supporting greyhound racing and gambling on it, continuing in australia,not suggesting our government should ban betting on it. i'm sure the people who supported banning it here are consistent and want betting on it banned here and in australia as well.

i think gammalites correct. The focus has shifted to short distances because they have less horse numbers, so they want them to run more often. so sprint racing is a symptom of a declining sport. its seen as a soluition but in reality that solution is also part of the problem. the irony is,sprint racing is part of the reason why the sport is declining, as we all know that what you get from horses running more often and over short distances,is those who draw poorly or lack gate speed simply go back and just follow them around and wait for next week.That then leads to a lack of punter confidence in the product and results in declining interest from the punter. for me,i still like to watch harness racing,but the gallops is a far superior betting product because you always get the impression everyone is there to win. You can't say that these days about a lot of the harness racing in places like auckland and cambridge. thats why those blokes from out the gate on thursdays,started off betting at the cambridge trots but lost interest and much preferred the betting on the nz greyhounds.Anyone who went in their syndicate would have got the same impression as they did,stay away from the trots.

it still must be a complicated picture brodie. we all can tell hrnz is spending way more than the industry self generates and burning through their entain money. then we know hrnz also have a policy that prioritises the loss making clubs and the loss making sectors within the industry, because they see them as strategically important,even though its obvious the support for the industry in those areas and sectors has diminshed. So hrnz has themselves placed a chain and ball around the overall nz industry by sticking with the status quo instead of forward planning. so really its hrnz 's policies that are the main problem . the thing about the entain deal was i agree with you that there would have been better partners for the racing industry than entain,but quite simply the nz racing industries pushed for entain because they felt they needed a massive short term injection of capital or the industry would be in serious strife.so i get that as well. there was no doubtt the website that tabcorp have for the racing is miles better than the tab website. e.g.You can view video replays of all runners previous starts prior to making a selection. No need to go onto the hrnz that often never works,and the tabcorp website has videos of each race put up for viewing within 5-10 minutes of the finish of each race,whereas the only place you will see that in nz is on the hrnz website and they can often take an hour or two to put up.And combining with tabcorp would have seen bigger tote pools than combining with entain.Then you have to remamber tabcorp control the sky racing coverage which massively effects turnovers. so many other things as well,but the nz racing industry went with the quick hit of cash. then you factor in the many millions hrnz want to waste on bailing out clubs like auckland and cambridge who were run incompetently in previous years,often with hrnzs oversight and seeming blessing.e.g cambrisge running slot races that added significantly to their financial hole which then required hrnz bailing out. HRNZ have knowingly particpated in that fiscal irresponsibilty. so its really hrnz who are the issue. nothing entain has done in the last 3 years has changed. they have been up front. its hrnz who have a spend and hope attitude. Because hrnz couldn't possibly know for sure just how much more better off they will be from the geo blocking impact on racing turnover here and overseas and just how much better off they will be from increased sports betting returns from entains increased turnovers on sport. Its all a guess. And the impact of the greyhound industry closing has many variables that they will be guessing. Like hrnz will get a share of turnover payouts that used to go to the greyhound industry and you would guess it would outweigh the lost revenue from the harness tracks who host greyhound racing,but it must all vbe a bit of a guess. until thats all played out over the next year or two. so when you spend and hope,maybe things may turn out managable,maybe they may turn out worse that you think,the thing is why are hrnz taking such a risky approach. the people in charge currently,seem to be taking the same apprioach the ATC took with their apartment development. In other words,making huge decisions without fully understanding the risks.

so the tab restricts taking bets from known winning punters. But they take the same bet from everyone else. so its the person making the bet who is targeted,not the actual bet. i understand why you may think that is best practice,i may not agree with it,but i understand it. but,your comments linking that to greater tab profit,well its not as simple as that. if profit is the priority like you say it should be,then you need to have more flexible thinking. because as i have pointed out many times,the tab may reduce the losses on the ff by restricting winning ff punters,but if those same punters use those profts generated to invest on tote pools, then by resticting the ff profits,you most likely will impact their spending on the tote pools.Its just the way it works. i've given specific examples several times in the past to explain how it can actually play out. For some reason people will still always argue its black and white,in other words restricting winning ff punters leads to greater tab profit,when clearly that isn't always the case. And thats also without even factoring in winning ff punters using some of their profits to participatie in other areas of the industry like ownership,breeding, sponsorship.

so we can't thank entain for the punters promise either,just macanulty

the tote win pool on the open class pace at cambridge last night was $4500 and of course they had no place pool. the thing about turnovers is hrnz can cherry pick whatever they like from them, to sell the narrative they want to sell. like the auckalnd cup meeting. They no doubt can say turnover was up,because they had 2 more races. And lets not forget they are comparing turnovers,to nz turnovers in 2024. since the geo blocking,turnovers have to have gone up because punters can't bet with overseas agents. You have to remember hrnz was receiving a % from each $ those overseas betting providers turned over from their nz customer base.So geo blocking will allow hrnz to say,turnovers are up but hrnz aren't also saying how much income has been reduced from the overseas betting providers.they should if they wanted to provide context. the whole turnover/profit generated thing sounds complicated but it could easily be simplified. turnovers are obviously a very important indication of punter participation,but of just as,if not of greater importance are the revenue generated(profit) from each race and each race meeting. like what the fella cmn refers to on the other channel. Like we've said before,ff betting can be good turnover wise,but at the same time bad income(profit) wise and vice versa.It all depends how well the bookies did with their ff on each race. to accurately gauge the importance of each sector,region and grade of racing, hrnz should be providing profit loss data in relation to the aforementioned. Also they should factor in dates structure so as to not unfairly use data to paint an unfair picture. they don't. They deliberately cherry pick,crow from the roof tops if they have any story that fits their narrative of how they prioritise industry funding,then they are silent when the facts don't. only when hrnz are transparent,which they cleary aren't,only then can people accurately gauge the importance of each sector,region,grade of horse,track type, to the overall industry. Hrnz are prioritising the loss making parts of the industry over the profit making parts,whether it be regions or grade of horses. And everyone knows that makes no sense and must undermine the future abilty of the industry to pay reasonable stakemoney,effectively undermining the overall future viabilty of the industry.

belle neige i thought had its chance forbury. i had a small win bet on it and wasn't disapponited in the drive. I also had a small bet on jasinova in an earlier race ,driven by hackett and thought that was a poor tactical drive,but thats the norm up there from most of the drivers. You watch nelson races and you can understand each drivers tactics. Up there,its the opposite. So many of the races are just follow them around type races and wait for next week. tonight just the same. that race merlin just won. Punters again showed they have little interest in particpating in small uncompetitive races like that.And that is supposedly their best product.Very sad really. The tote turnover on that race,even with the advantage of what is normally a prime betting time,was worse than even the 6 horse non win trot at nelson.It was such a bore of a race as well. Punters see it that much that they just turn off the north island product.. i read recently on the hrnz website the betting person at hrnz,mr peden said the northern initaive that hrnz has invested so heavily in is paying dividends. He used a one off increase in turnover on the recent cambridge meeting where betting was up 23%.,although even he noted they had 20% more races that day.That bloke talks more bullshit than anyone i've ever read. They haven't mentioned the Auckland cup betting since on hrnz website.you can guarante they haven't,because it would prove what i just said about what mr peden says. why do they cherry pick and mislead to justify their decision making.Its really just rather sad.

just to emphasis my point. if you look at the munber of drivers who drove in nz races in 2019. There were 236. in 2025, there was only 196,and 9 of those were only here for the world drivers champs. so the figure really is 187. so hrnz have introduced all these so called clever penalty junior initiatives to keep people in the sport, yet in just 6 years,there has been a 20% drop in the numbers(49 indivuidual drivers) who drove. hrnz say their concession and penalty free system is designed to keep people in the sport.Who are they fooling?

i see where your coming from.Thats where good programming and handicapping should come into play. Horses whose first win is in a weak non win race and subsequently prove uncompetitive in the 1 win grade,unfortunately are considered of no value by the handicappers and race programmers. i've made that point myself a few times in the past,but thats the reality. Its a handicapping and programming issue,not a penalty free win issue. also,if they made the manawatu races penalty free races like you suggest,then theoretically you could have a horse start each week over 2 1/2 months,have a win in a junior drivers penalty free race,then the manawatu penalty free race you suggest,as well as win 2 half points junior driver wins and be given quiet runs in the other 6 races and be unplaced,and that horse would still be rated the same as it would be had it not started.in other words instead of 3 wins and ending up back at square 1 you are suggesting they get 4 wins and end up back at square 1. HRNZ have already gone totally overboard in how they prioritise the junior drivers over other participants. LIke ,why does hrnz have a policy that will pay for the juniors licences,their gear,give them oopprtunities to get drives due to the penalty free wins and half penalties,yet say to everyone else who battles away to make a living that they are entitled to no help.Also have the dumbos at hrnz not realised that many of the people losing their drives to the claiming juniors will be the ones who were juniors up until a year or two prior. The ex juniors who struggled getting drives receive no support from anyone when they lose their junior driver status. Anyobne who thinks they do is kidding themselves. Why would anyone put them on when they can use a current junior who will get them half points and penalty free wins. Just go look at the juniors who struggled for drives 5 years ago and you will see what i mean.You never hear of them again. and as i pointed out in a post last year,the juniorsin the bottom half of the premiership are not benefitting fro0 the cureent system one bit. They are not getting any extra drives at all. the stats show that. neally i think the whole penalty free system is stacked in favour of and against certain sectors of the industry. HRNZ know it,everyone knows it,but they simply don't care about that sector. HRNZ focus is very much on prioritising some sectors of the industry over others. Its very much illustrated in the penalty free,half penalty system ,whetehr it be junior drivers or 2 year olds or 3 year olds. i

why?

i had noticed imperial command had turned the corner. in the first few months he went to aussie he was a flop and seemed to have the same issues he had here,just before he left,,whatever they were. then he didn't race for 6 months.Since he resumed he has done a good job. I assume the good spell or some treatment identified some issue and has helped sort him out. it haven't been watching much aussie racing lately although i did see swayzee beat don hugo a couple of weeks ago. swayzee i would have thought would have been stuffed by now,but the way he won against don hugo,he seemed back to his best. He simply wore don hugo into the ground then after the finsih they showed him running strong down the back staright as if he could easily do another round at the same speed,ears flicking as if to say,that was easy enough. Meanwhile the rest of the field had hit the finish and virtually pulled up straight after, as they all looked stuffed. from my observations over the years,when horses are given perfromance enhancers ,it will always cacth up to them sooner rather than later,they mostly just get sick or disappear,yet swayzees still going. Maybe hes just one out of the box.